A Case Study In Disaster Management: FEMA’S
Incapability of Mitigating the Effects of Hurricane
Katrina.
Student: Dzenaida Husaric Student ID: 2375427 Word Count: 19.549
Programme: Public Administration Track: Public Management
Supervisor: Sarah Giest
1
Table of Content
1. Introduction ...3 1.1 Central Question ...3 1.2 Academic Relevance ...3 1.3 Thesis Structure ...4 2. Literature Review ...5 2.1 Disaster Management ...52.2 Disaster Management Models ...6
2.3 Role of Big Data in Disaster Management ...7
2.4 Required Actions...9
2.4.1 Role of Communication ...9
2.4.2. Distributing Knowledge ... 10
2.4.3 Adoption of Mitigation Policies ... 10
2.5 Skills and Capacity in Organizations ... 11
2.5.1 Skills in Surprise Management ... 11
2.5.2 Core competences ... 12 2.5.3 Leadership Skills ... 12 3. Methodology ... 15 3.1 Case Study ... 15 3.1.1 Case selection ... 15 3.1.2 Deviant Case... 16
3.2 The independent and Dependent Variables ... 16
3.3 Data Collection & Analyses ... 18
3.3.1 National Response Plan ... 18
3.3.2 Chronological record of incidents ... 19
3.3.3 Evaluations Reports on FEMA’s failures ... 19
3.3.4 Interview ... 19
4. Case Description ... 20
4.1 Levees ... 20
4.2 Events Timeline ... 20
4.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency ... 21
5. Results ... 22
5.1 Adoption of mitigation policies. ... 22
2
5.1.2 National Response Plan ... 22
5.1.3 National Incident Management System... 23
5.1.4. National Preparedness Goal ... 23
5.1.5 FEMA’s Responsibilities ... 24
5.2. Communication. ... 26
5.2.1 Timeline of Events ... 26
5.2.2 Preparing for the storm ... 28
5.2.3 Communication in the network ... 28
5.3 Situational awareness. ... 30
5.3.1 Preparing for Katrina ... 30
5.3.2 Mr. Brown’s Communication Skills ... 31
5.3.3 Mr. Brown’s Perspective ... 32 6. Analysis ... 33 6.1 Expectation 1... 33 6.2 Expectation 2... 35 6.3 Sub-Expectation 2.1 ... 37 6.4 Expectation 3: ... 37 7. Conclusion ... 38 7.1 Summary of Results ... 38
7.1.1 Adoption of Mitigation Policies ... 39
7.1.2 Communication ... 39
7.1.3 Situational Awareness ... 40
7.2 Limitations of the Study ... 41
7.3 Future Research ... 41
References ... 42
Appendix ... 46
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Central Question
On Monday August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, the sixth major hurricane to affect the United States, made landfall in the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi (Dass-Brailsford, 2010). Because of its magnitude, force, expenses, ill preparation of locals, states, and federal authorities, the hurricane became ill-famed and questioned the indispensable prerequisites to effective disaster management (Dass-Brailsford, 2010).
Throughout the storm, poor decisions were made leading to vast criticism. One institution in particular, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was heavily criticised for the numerous poor leadership decisions it made and got ‘blamed’ for the late response. After the storm, explanations were sought - how could this have happened?- who is to blame?- where was FEMA after landfall?- and why was it not prevented in the first place?
Consequently, Katrina reminded everyone in government of the valuable lesson that management, organization, and particularly leadership, matter in moments of disaster. Hence, the notion of Simpson (2008) that ‘disasters occur when the burdens of the system are larger than the capabilities of the management to mitigate its effects’, supports this observation. Boin & t' Hart (2010) state that it is known how leaders can worsen disasters, namely by ignoring threats, making ‘awful’ decisions, and by showing behaviorial signs indicating they ‘do not care’. However, unfortunately, the evidence that leadership is crucial in mitigating the effects of disasters, is ill-defined.
While the literature on Katrina put a great effort in explaining the failed response to the storm, it contributed far less to the evidence on why leadership is a crucial element in effective disaster management. In fact, in their article ‘ What if Hurricane Katrina hit in 2020?’, McGuire & Schneck (2010) confirm that there is still the need for development for greater strategic capacity in order for disaster management to be effective in the future.
By exploring the case of Hurricane Katrina, and focusing on FEMA’s capabilities and leadership skills, this study aims to develop a better understanding on why leadership is crucial in disaster management. This better understanding will ultimately prevent natural disasters from becoming man-made disasters. Hence, it would then be known what ations need to be undertaken by leaders, for disaster management to be effective. As hazards are acts of nature and are therefore impossible to prevent, the purpose of this case study is to focus on the mitigation of the impacts of hazards, and to develop theory on what skills or capabilities are necessary to effectively mitigate their impacts. In other words, the following research question needs to be answered:
To what extent were FEMA’s capabilities and leadership skills responsible for the late response to mitigate the hazardous effects of Hurricane Katrina?
1.2 Academic Relevance
By answering this question, this study aims to contribute to science in the field of preparedness, disaster management, and public administration. Preparing for disasters is not an easy task, and according to Drabek (2012), ‘disaster preparedness remains a complex black box that has only been empirically explored by a few’. Currently, the literature on preparedness has difficulties in expressing a collection of leadership skills and capabilities that serve as indicators in
4 stimulating preparedness. Given the fact that natural disasters can occur on a frequent basis, and characteristics such as competences, skills, and leadership style are essential in the mitigation phase of disaster management, it is critical for emergency organizations to be able to validate their management’s capabilities and leadership skills. Therefore, the lack of a clear description of the required role of managers during disasters is a gap in the literature that needs to be filled.
Furthermore, this study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge of hurricane threat facing not only the United States, but numerous countries around the world. Moreover, this study’s recommendations are aimed to contribute to disaster management policy in that it reflects upon mitigation policies and their effective use. In addition, is allows to develop valuable insights in emergency agencies’ operations and their strategies in managing hazardous threats.
Considering the numerous evaluations reports that highlight the lessons that are learned from Katrina, it is important that these lessons get implemented. Birkland (2009) confirms that if these lessons do not get implemented, these evaluation reports merely serve as ‘fantasy documents’. A case study will not only allow for evaluating what went wrong, but will also reveal the mechanism responsible for the mistakes that have occurred and this will allow for theory development. By learning from the mistakes, and implementing the lessons learned, emergency managers are able to benefit from the results of this study, because they will possess the tools to decrease the potential risk of future hazardous impacts of hurricanes.
1.3 Thesis Structure
In the second Chapter, a theoretical perspective is given on preparedness in disaster management, and the required capabilities and skills of leaders for effective preparedness in disaster management. This will form the basis of the theoretical expectations presented at the end of this chapter. Chapter three describes the research methods, which involves a single case-study of FEMA. The case is presented in Chapter 4, followed by the results presented in Chapter 5. Based on the theoretical expectations, the results are analysed in Chapter 6. The final chapter concludes the outcomes of the study by providing an answer to the main research question, discussing the limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.
5
2. Literature Review
To study the problem statement described in the previous section, the following section of the paper reviews disaster management phases and in particular, the role of managers in these phases. This is done to illustrate the relevance of leadership skills and capabilities in effectively mitigating the risk of hazards. An overview is given of main theories in literature, in which the focus has been put on the individual perspective, namely the responsible leader responsible for management. This section therefore discusses the main concepts regarding the capabilities and skills of managers, with the goal of formulating theoretical expectations for empirical testing.
2.1 Disaster Management
Disasters are events that have the potential to create damage on human activity, which can cause the loss of life, property damage, social and economic disturbance, or environmental deprivation (United Nations ISDR, 2004, p. 39). As the number of disasters has increased over the years, Li et al. (2017), stress out that disaster management has become an unrelenting issue in the world. In fact, there are numerous efforts of people all over the world trying to mitigate and in particular, manage disaster movements (Li et al., 2017).
Li et al. (2017) refer to disaster management as not only a process of planning, but also a process of minimizing the social and physical impact of disasters, and not to mention, making sure the community is not vulnerable to the negative effects of natural disasters. According to Warfield (2004), disaster management aims to not only reduce and avoid the consequences of hazards, but also tries to guarantee support to victims, and to attain rapid and effective recovery. Equally important, Warfield (2004) stresses that disaster management has a strong link with developments, in that it promotes, protects, and recovers sustainable livelihoods during disasters. This development oriented disaster management approach, mainly aims to reduce hazards, prevent disasters, and prepare for disasters (Warfield, 2004).
Combining both definitions, the core is that all disaster management models involve two over-arching main phases: pre-disasters risk reduction, and post disaster recovery (Christo & Niekerk, 2012). The pre-disaster phase comprises preparation, mitigation, and prevention, and the post-disaster phase comprises response, recovery, and development (Blaikie et al., 2003). These phases are the core principles of the traditional model of disaster management and are respected by other disaster management models in the literature.
Within the dimensions of these main phases, Briere & Elliot (2000) distinguish six main characteristics of natural disasters. These are: fear of death, loss of possessions, actual death or injury, injury of respondent, and age and years since last disaster (Briere & Elliot, 2000, p. 668). Following these characteristics, Celik & Corbacioglu (2010) also made a distinguishment in main characteristics, in which they highlight the importance of unpredictability, dynamic change in the environment, and the availability of limited resources (p. 140). Even though Briere & Elliot (2000) and Celik & Corbacioglu (2012) highlight these main characteristics, they do not provide further elaboration.
Focussing on the characteristics mentioned by Celik & Corbacioglu (2012), Gunderson (2010), mentions that the unpredictability of disasters makes it difficult to anticipate complex dynamics. Hence, it is difficult to accurately predict the impact natural disasters will have on humans. Consequently, this makes it also difficult to assign all the resources you need beforehand. The
6 issue of dynamic changes in the environment can be explained by the dynamic nature of disasters, with the notion that the effects of disasters cannot be predicted (Comfort et al., 2001). In addition, Celik & Corbacioglu (2012) argue that along with this unpredictable and dynamic environment comes a great sense of uncertainty. In specific, they refer to the uncertainty that ascends from the lack of sufficient information, and from the shortage of information about the environment (Celik & Corbacioglu, 2012, p. 138).
Thus, within the pre-disasters risk reduction, and post disaster recovery phases of natural disasters, managers are confronted with the unpredictability of natural disasters, their catastrophic consequences (both physical and non-physical), and their creation of great uncertainty caused by the lack of information of the environment. Scholars have taken these characteristics and have used them in developing disaster management models that allow for effective disaster management. Below further elaboration is given on two main models in the literature, that are particularly focused on natural disasters.
2.2 Disaster Management Models
In the same fashion, but differently structured, Alexander (2002), divides the disaster cycle into phases of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Figure 1). The first two phases take place in the pre-disaster phase and the latter two occur in the post-disaster phase. Alexander (2002) defines all phases as followed:
Mitigation: all planned actions to moderate and decrease the impact of upcoming disasters;
Preparedness: all planned actions to reduce the impact of disasters when they are predicted or at hand;
Response: all emergency actions taken during the impact, but also during the aftermath; Recovery: process of repairing damage, restoring services, and reconstructing facilities
after the disaster (Alexander, 2002, p.5).
Unlike the traditional model, Alexander (2002) includes reconstruction in the disaster cycle, which focuses on strengthening the progress of repairing and rebuilding a post-disaster development, by constructing new forms of security (Alexander, 2002, p.8-9).
In general, disaster management seeks to provide a type of planning that can be used in all kinds and types of hazards. However, with the complexity of disasters, the forms of emergency planning is also quite complex. For this reason, Alexander (2002) mentions that the planning approach is mainly based on advanced technologies, particularly in the field of communication. Information technology for example, is a crucial tool in disaster management, which will be discussed in this chapter as well. However, I will like to discuss another disaster model in support of this latter argument, but quite different from that of Alexander (2002).
Kelly’s (1998) model (Figure 2) addresses the complex relation among disasters and development. The model is circular and aims to reduce the complexity of disasters, and not to mention, handle the non-linear nature of disasters. Correspondingly, it serves as an illustration in addressing the practical needs of disaster management, and more importantly, to assist the disaster manager/researcher in defining the relationship between inputs and impacts (Kelly, 1998). Important to realize, to achieve reasonable results, Kelly (1998) claims that this model asks for not only a comprehensive database of disaster impact and input and output, but also for trained personal and sufficient technological infrastructure.
7 Figure 1. The Disaster Cycle Figure 2: Kelly’s circular model
Source: Alexander, 2002. Source: Kelly, 1998
Even though many scholars have developed models deriving from the traditional one, only one model in particular, namely that of Kelly (1998) can be utilized in several disaster situations. It therefore presents a more applicable disaster management cycle for non-specific situations. I present both models to explain how disasters may advance, how dealing with disasters can be planned, and how the complexity of disasters can be narrowed. Both these models, and all other related models in the literature, try to formulate a common base of understanding the disaster cycle. Nevertheless, more important, I present these models to address the importance of what both authors highlight as well in their work, which is the importance of comprehensive data and information technology (IT). Both Kelly (1998), and Alexander (2002), highlight the importance of data and IT, and with attention to Alexander (2002), who even states that IT is revolutionizing the management processes in disasters.
Even though it is well known that disasters cannot entirely be prevented, however, as both authors argue, and many with them have done so as well, effective use of IT and data can mitigate the degree of loss in life and property. In support of this argument, Zheng et al. (2013) stated that ‘techniques to discover collect, organize, search, and disseminate real-time disaster information efficiently, have become national priorities for efficient crisis management and disaster recovery tasks’. To emphasize, information technology, social media, and of course Big Data Analytics (BDA), are all powerful tools for assistance in all four main phases of the disaster management cycle.
2.3 Role of Big Data in Disaster Management
As many definitions of big data have evolved over the years, this paper will solely address one that is in the scope of this study, and therefore in the light of disaster management. According to Akter et al. (2015), big data can be defined as a ‘holistic’ approach in managing, processing, and analysing the 5V’s: Volume, Velocity, Variety, Value, and Veracity. In short, ‘Volume’ is
8 the amount of data storage or recorded; ‘Velocity’ explains how often and with what speed data is produced or delivered; ‘Variety’, highlights the diversity in sources and formats including both structured and unstructured data; ‘Value’, expresses the potential of extracting economic benefits from data, and ‘Veracity’, refers to the quality and trustworthiness of the data (Akter et al., 2015, p. 235).
In this regard, Papadopoulos et al. (2017), suggest that big data can improve sustainable societal development and built volatile disaster infrastructure by assisting in developing policies, strategies, procedures, and practices, that will internalize environmental and human health costs on society (that are now externalized). In addition, Papadopoulos et al. (2017) sum up several reasons why big data can help data scientists in disaster management. First, big data is of great assistance by developing and implementing strategies that shield and manage natural resources environmentally. Second, it prevents depletion of resources and deprivation of capacities that can provide essential services for human health. Third, it converts pollution into useful products and therefore limits the amount of pollution. The fourth and main advantage in the context of sustainability, in that it looks into disaster management and analyses how individuals act towards disasters so that suitable measures can be taken. Furthermore, it formulates policies that focus on recovering and going back to ‘normal ways’ in communities (Papadopoulos et al., 2017, p.1110).
Following the arguments above, it is save to mention that Big Data contributes to sustainability to a large extent. In light of disaster management, Papadopoulos et al. (2017), provide another core argument on how big data is helpful. For example, in recovering and alleviating from negative consequences of disasters, the use of big data can be essential. Similarly, it helps in enhancing the adaptive capability to deal with with the future (Papadopoulos et al., 2017, p. 1110).
The usage of big data in the phases of the disaster cycle has been evolving. Its contribution in the cycle has of course many advantages. Emmanouil, et al. (2015) discuss the use of big data in all four phases of the cycle. In short, big data analytics can help in providing information for anticipating a crisis or reducing its’ risks (mitigation phase), develop a strategic approach that analyses dangers and deploys recourses (preparedness phase), identify the urgent areas and divide attention towards the areas (response phase), and finally, big data after the start of the recovery, the infrastructure will provide a big data source (Emmanouil et al., 2015).
With this being said, nowadays, scientists are also facing numerous challenges in dealing with the management of the large volumes of data, especially generated in disasters. Therefore, Emmanouil et al. (2015), stresses the need for data integration, aggregation, and visualization that will help management officials in optimizing the decision-making procedure. Moreover, since authorities have to make fast decisions during crisis, they are highly dependent on the quality of the information available (Emmanouil et al., 2015). Hence, the more qualitative the information, the more qualitative the decisions will be. If decision makers have the right information at the right time, risks can be assessed more efficiently and better decisions can be made in responding towards disasters.
Not to mention, Drosio & Stanek (2016) state that one of the main issues lies in dealing with unstructured data, which refers to data that is more complex than contained data in structured data. These are for examples photos, comments posted on social media, customer reviews, and
9 other multimedia content. This type of data cannot be separated into categories, and its’ analysis is difficult as well, since it cannot be structured in numerical terms (Drosio & Stanek, 2016). It is no secret that big data analytics can assist in this type of real-time monitoring during disasters. As mentioned before, it has the potential to mitigate the effects of disasters, by enabling access to real-time information in critical situations. Taking all arguments that are described above into account, I argue that all related studies merely express the need for effective data integration that will help disaster managers in decision-making. However, all studies lack in developing theory on how big data analytics can be applied effectively in disaster management. In this scenario, there is the lack of clear description of the required role of managers during disasters. In effect, managerial characteristics such as competences, skills, and leadership style are essential in the mitigation phase of disaster management, and are therefore in the need for more attention. Consequently, managers set policy objective, coordinate the activities of actors decide and how the available data during crisis is used to lessen the catastrophic consequences of disasters. For these reasons, the responsible manager should be a professional.
The next section is therefore focused on what type of competences and skills necessary on the individual level. The section starts off with a description of actions that managers need to undertake in mitigating the effects of hazard. Followed by this, an overview is given of the skills they require in effectively executing these actions.
2.4 Required Actions
2.4.1 Role of Communication
According to Meeds (2006), communication is information sharing and in the context of complex situations, it involves the technology associated with the representation, transfer, interpretation, and processing of data among persons, places and machines. In the literature of disaster management, the role of communication is considered to be a large one, especially in complex situations. It namely affects reaction times, command and control, and efficiency of organizations during a significant event (Meeds, 2006). Not only do Meeds (2006), Henstra (2012) and Kapucu (2014) highlight its importance, APNORC (2013), points out communication during and right after a disaster situation is an crucial component of response and recovery. This is because it not only connects affected people, families, communities with first responders, support systems, but it also is key to a community’s resilience (APNORC, 2013). Any type of disaster emergency is by nature chaotic and highly dynamic, creating physical, emotional, and social disorder. In such situations, communication is essential at all phased of disaster management. They do not only incorporate a wide range of measures to manage risks to the environment, but they also make it possible for managers to take the required precautions to mitigate the impact of hazard (Fakhruddin, 2007, p. 1).
The application of emergency communications is mostly present in the response and recovery phase of disaster management. However, it also has a crucial role in preparing for and preventing disasters. In disaster preparedness, its main function is provide warning information to individuals. Fakhruddin (2007) mentions two types of communications methods for warning dissemination: (1) mass notification methods and (2) addressable notification methods. The first are generally provided messages to everyone in a particular area, such as outdoor systems, sirens, mobile electronic signs, radio, television, and low power radio. The latter are individually addressed and target groups that are at risk. Examples of such communication
10 methods are: broadcasting systems, telecommunication systems (for example fax, internet, and satellite), and inter personal communication (going door-to-door to warn people) (p.2).
2.4.2. Distributing Knowledge
In the phase of preventing (mitigating its effects) disasters, emergency communications play a crucial role in distributing knowledge and in raising awareness. The telecommunication network needs to be well designed accompanied with a suitable information system to cope with the chaos created by the disaster (Fakhruddin, 2007, p.3). IT facilities is also an important aspect in dealing with disasters. Furthermore, Fakhruddin (2007) claims that communications are only useful when they are accessible and when communities at-risk know how to use them. The communication systems should therefore be in place before the disaster occurs, so that they are not cut off from the national response system (p.3). He also states that preparation is key for effective disaster prevention. He mentions the essence of training (all should be involved in the planning, implementation and operation of the system), public education and awareness about the purpose and capabilities of the system (Fakhruddin, 2007, p. 3). According to Boin & t' Hart (2010) effective preparation is based on the realisation that disasters are unique and can take on unknown proportions, which should be dealt with in the risk approach.
Mosely (2004) argues that preparing for disasters requires a detailed knowledge of risk assessment, which does not solely include allocating human and material resources by using countless checklists. On the contrary, the response should be planned specifically by focusing on specific sites and specific topics, such as media management. Mosely (2004), states that plans should cover all contingencies needs that are an ongoing process, and not an end in itself. He therefore argues that managers should take on a holistic view in disaster management. 2.4.3 Adoption of Mitigation Policies
To assure this holistic view, Henstra (2012) discusses the importance of managers adopting preparedness and mitigation policies. Important elements of preparedness policies are the identification of hazards and risk assessment. Henstra (2012), argues that disaster managers should formulate appropriate response strategies involving three levels of complexity: hazard identification, involving surveys of areas to identify hazards and their potential magnitude; vulnerability assessment, examining relations between people, hazards, and property to assess the potential harms that can occur from a hazard; and risk analysis, involving explicit, quantitative evaluations of the potential injuries, damages, and costs within a specific area over a specific period of time (p. 238).
As for mitigation policies, Henstra (2012) describes five mitigation-related elements:
1. Mitigation planning: input required from public officials and community members so that managers can develop strategies to reduce people’s vulnerability;
2. Warning System: means to warn citizens from disasters, such as sirens, alert signals, and telephone systems producing warning messages;
3. Public Education: the extent to which citizens are educated about hazards, in which more education leads to more willingness to act and also know how to act during hazards;
4. Dangerous goods routing: communication of transport of dangerous goods to citizens, so that protective measures can be planned and citizens’ that are affected are informed well;
11 5. Risk-based land-use planning: planning on how lands are used, so that development can be prohibited in lands where hazard are most likely to happen , thereby limiting the exposure of people to hazards (Henstra, 2012, p. 240).
Next to these elements, several skills are required from disaster managers. Below, an overview is given.
2.5 Skills and Capacity in Organizations
To face the numerous challenges described above, capable employees are needed that acquire the right competences, training and skill to analyse big data. In the context of analysing real-time data, Kiron et al. (2014) stress the importance of big data analytics capability (BDAC) and qualitative data. In addition, Howlett et al. (2015) introduced analytical capability in their conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. In their work, they introduce three types of policy capacity (necessary set of skills, resources, competences, and capabilities to perform policy): analytical, operational and political (Howlett et al., 2015, p. 2). In essence, all three types involve capabilities, competences and resources at the individual level, organizational level, and at the systemic level. This eventually generates nine types of policy capacity.
Focusing on analytical capacity, Howlett et al. (2015) stress the importance of abilities to access and apply technical and scientific knowledge and analytical techniques on the individual level. Hence, there is the need for officials to be able to absorb and process information, in order to make decisions, implement and evaluate policies. Notably, because of the lack of skills of governments, available evidence is often not used. Next to the individual analytical capacity, Howlett et al. (2015) argue that governments must possess analytical capacity on the organizational level as well. This is defined by the presence and availability of individuals with analytical skills, the presences of process for collecting and analysing data, and organizational commitment to evidence-based policy (Howlett et al., 2015, p.5).
Furthermore, the role of the manager at the individual-operational level is highly relevant in determining the government’s overall policy capacity (Howlett et al., 2015, p.5). In particular, the emphasis is put on the current difficulties of promoting leadership in public service, without clarifying arrangements for accountability. Thus, the type of leadership style influences the policy capacity, and therefore also the analytical capacity. Before I highlight the role of leadership style in the context of disaster management, it is important to note that Howlett et al. (2015) also stress the importance of organizational-operational capacity. To clarify, the work relationship between managers and workers is highly depended on the internal organization of public agencies and the political-institutional environment they work in.
2.5.1 Skills in Surprise Management
All things considered, both the analytical and operational capacity on both the individual and organization level, are relevant in addressing public problems. In either case, high levels of capacity, lead to excellent outputs and outcomes. In order to build analytic and operational capacity, Farazmand (2007) mentions the essence of training, education, exercises, technological capacity, financial recourses, and expertise in building capacity. Accordingly, the role of disaster managers is quite complicated. To elaborate, Farazamand (2007) argues that disaster managers need to acquire advance knowledge, because disaster management includes crisis and complex situations, and therefore requires different ways of thinking, a new mind-set, and a complexity-driven management system that can effectively analyse chaos and crisis
12 situations. Farazamand (2007) also calls this a ‘surprise management’ system. One of surprise management’s core principles is that it demands cutting-edge knowledge, skills, and attitudes different from people in routine environments of governance (Farazamand, 2007, p. 157). Given these points, bureaucracies are no match for disaster management. When actors are caught by surprise, Farazamand (2007) states that more chaos is produced, which can be avoided by capacity building with surprise management.
Furthermore, there are strategic conditions for surprise management, and they refer to four key points of attention: foci, loci, positions, and who’s. Foci’s are focus areas during crisis situations. Loci’s are the locations of the focus areas, or where the crisis is present. Positions refer to the strategic position of key actors or participants in the crisis areas. The fourth and final key point are the who’s, which refer to the individuals and institutional actors that are positioned in these crisis situations to make decisions and act accordingly (Farazamand, 2007, p. 157).
2.5.2 Core competences
Next to Henstra’s (2012), mitigation policies, Kapucu (2014) identifies eleven core competences for disaster managers. The ones mentioned are critical in mitigating disasters, because they are in line with the arguments mentioned by the authors described in the previous sections. These are: effective networking, coordination, and collaboration, environment and community-sensitive practices, effective leadership through communication and analytical skills, and finally, knowledge, training, and experience-based critical decision-making. Regarding the first, Provan & Milward (2001), argue that an effective network maintains a limited core of agencies providing critical services. In addition, they also claim that there is no upper limit to the number of agencies joining a network, however, the larger the network, the less effective it becomes, because of the increasing coordination costs (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 418).
However, one thing that I do want to highlight, is the fact that Kapucu (2014), compared to other authors, includes the role of effective leadership of disaster managers. According to Kapucu (2014), effective leadership includes an in-depth analysis of political, social, economic, and environmental factors, and their integration into the larger picture of the current disaster situation. In addition, he mentions effective leaders to be leaders that do not only understand the strength of using communication to affect and convince others, but also possess judgmental and analytical skills to make decisions in critical situations (Kapucu, 2014, p.507).
2.5.3 Leadership Skills
In Public Management, the presence of certain types of leadership skills can be decisive for capacity building and therefore performance. Whilst the relevance of all competences mentioned above, Patton (2007) claims that disaster managers have to be completely competent in the areas of networking and coordination, political, bureaucratic, and social context, and in leadership. Concerning the latter, Boin & Renaud (2013), confirm Patton’s claims, and argue that leaders have to organize activities that contain sense-making ( understanding the crisis), critical decision-making, vertical and horizontal coordination, meaning making (voicing an authoritative definition of the situation), and communication (p. 41).
Accompanying the above, according to Weick et al. (2005), sense-making involves turning conditions into a circumstance that is grasped explicitly in words and that serves as a facilitator into action (p. 409). For people to solve problems, they do not need to perceive the current
13 situation accurately, Weick et al. (2005) state that individuals can act effectively by making sense of circumstances in manners hat give the impression to move toward wide-ranging long-term goals (p. 415). Sense-making and organization constitute one another, in the sense that organizations are the efforts to order the inherent instability of human actions, to channel it towards certain ends, to shape it in a particular way through generalizing and institutionalising particular meanings and rules (Weick et al., 2005, p. 410). Organizations emerge through sense-making, and do not produce sense-making. Considering the fact that sense-making is difficult to do, the role of organizational leaders is important. In the view of Langenberg & Wesseling (2016), leadership presents itself as a stimulator towards sharing of meaning, which can convert ‘the way it is’, into ‘the way it could be’. They claim it represents the escape from what seems inconceivable, chaotic and unsympathetic to us (Langenberg & Wesseling, 2016, p.238). 2.5.3.1 Situational Awareness
Regarding critical decision-making and sense-making, situational awareness plays a key role in the view of Harrald & Jefferson (2007). They define the term as ‘the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the analysis of their status in the near future (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007, p.2). Three levels of situational awareness are discussed by the authors: (1) Level 1, perceiving critical factors in the environment, such as visual, auditory, and tactile perceptions; (2) Level 2, understanding the meaning of the data in level 1, which required knowledge and experience with this type of data; and (3), Level 3, predicting what will happen after the data is obtained in level 1, understood in level 2. This level goes accompanied with high level of expertise and that the predictor is not burdened with additional information responsibilities (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007, p.2).
For leaders to make the right decisions to reach their goals, Harrald & Jefferson (2007), claim that they require the right information with the right data. They argue that the data collected should:
Directly support the decision-maker in reaching their objective;
Be the attributes essential to appropriately define a required piece of information; Offer the facility to describe relationships between things;
Provide the ability to link the attributes to time. By taking a look on what changes occur; in data values, a decision-maker can obtain level 3 of situational awareness;
Be complete, timeliness, accurate, and consistent, so that it can meet the action needs; of the decision-maker (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007, p. 3).
In addition to Boin & Renaud and Harrald & Jeffeson’s work, Kapucu & Wart (2006) developed a model for disaster management, in which they also express the role of leadership. According to them, disaster leaders should be able to work together with the numerous stakeholders in the system, so that organizational goals can be reached. It is of great advantage if these relationships can be managed successfully (Kapucu & Wart (2006). Other importance skills for disaster managers are: motivating, strategic planning, problem solving, decisiveness, motivating, and managing innovation and creativity (Kapucu & Wart, 2006).
To summarize, if leaders want to build their analytical and operational capacity, all mentioned authors in this study highlight the importance of several actions that need to be undertaken and skills required. All mentioned authors agree on the fact that leaders need to acquire an effective coordinative inter- and intra-organizational network to manage the mitigation phase of disasters effectively. As has been noted, within this network, three main elements are expected from
14 leaders. First, they should effectively adopt the mitigation policies described above, in preparing for disasters. Second, they have to organize activities that contain sense-making, critical decision-making, vertical and horizontal coordination, meaning making and effective communication. The latter serves as a foundation for an effective network and will therefore have a central role in this study. Third, the role of situational awareness and the required used of data in reaching situational awareness, is crucial throughout all of these activities. Raising situational awareness is therefore a key leadership skill required by disaster managers. Based on these theoretical arguments, the focus in this study is put on the adoption of mitigation policies, the elements of communication, and situational awareness. Below, a short summary is given of the theoretical arguments made regarding these elements.
Adoption of Mitigation Policies
Mosely (2004) states that plans should cover all contingencies needs that are an ongoing process, and not an end in itself. Thus, the use of endless checklists during disaster management is not sufficient. As Mosely (2004) argues, managers should take on a holistic view in disaster management, and this involves the adoption of mitigation policies. By implementing these policies, managers are able to perform the identification of hazards and carry out a risk assessment. In this process, there are five crucial elements that need to be involved: mitigation planning, use of warning systems, education of the public, dangerous goods routing, and the presence of risk-based land-use planning. With the implication of the elements, managers are well prepared.
Role of Communication
Effective communication incorporates a wide range of measures to manage risks to the environment, but also make it possible for managers to take the required precautions to mitigate the impact of hazard. The element of warning systems, in specific the application of emergency communications has a crucial role in preparing for and preventing disasters. Emergency communications play a crucial role in distributing knowledge and in raising awareness. The telecommunication network needs to be well designed accompanied with a suitable information system to cope with the chaos created by the disaster. In addition, good communications assists in discovering the foci, loci, positions, and who’s in surprise management.
Situational Awareness
Moreover, effective communication leads to higher level of situational awareness. Harrald & Jefferson (2007) state that if leaders want to make critical decisions and make sense out of a situation, they need to have situational awareness. This will help them in making the right decisions to effectively mitigate the effect of hazards. To reach the goal of being prepared (effectively) for disasters, managers need to perceive critical factors in the environment, understanding the meaning of its data , and predict what will happen after the data is obtained. After these three stages, they are fully aware of the situations and can make the right decisions to mitigate the effects of the natural disaster.
15 Based on the theory discussed, the following theoretical expectations have been formulated:
Expectation 1
o The full adoption of mitigation policies is a necessary condition for effective mitigation of hazardous impacts.
Expectation 2:
o Low levels of communication in a network decreases the effectiveness of the mitigation of hazardous impacts.
Sub-Expectation 2.1:
o Well-designed emergency communication systems produce a significant increase in the effectiveness of the mitigation of hazardous impacts.
Expectation 3:
o As the situational awareness decreases, the effectiveness of the mitigation of hazardous impacts decreases.
3. Methodology
The following section provides an overview of information regarding case selection, the description and relevance of the case, data collection and sampling.
This is a single case study, researching the relevance of capabilities and leadership skills of an emergency response organization in mitigating the effects of natural disasters.
The research question in this study is as followed: To what extent were FEMA’s
capabilities and leadership skills responsible for the late response to mitigate the hazardous effects of Hurricane Katrina?
3.1 Case Study
The phenomena studied in this paper will be linked to the single agency FEMA. It is found that a fundamental failure of leadership contributed to a late response to Hurricane Katrina. In order to reflect upon these elements of failure, and explore its lessons, this study will: identify which mitigation policies were adopted in responding to the storm, what kind of role communication has played in this scenario, and how the lack of situational awareness contributed to this failure. This will allow me to conclude to what extent FEMA’s capabilities and leadership skills were responsible for the late response to early warnings of Katrina.
As the literature shows the relevance of individual analytical capacity in disaster management, it will be measured throughout the study. This means that I will mainly reflect upon FEMA’s director (Mr. Brown), the decision-maker of the organization.
3.1.1 Case selection
Given that this study involves a single case, qualitative research is most appropriate. According to Landman (2008), a qualitative study allows a researcher to recognize significant factors contributing to a specific outcome. Furthermore, Goulding (2002) states that case studies make it possible for researchers to link incidents conceptually and describe the socio-historical context of a case as an explanatory framework (p.18). The case of FEMA is selected based on what Qureshi (2018) describes as ‘theory sampling’. She refers to this as a method of ‘searching and gathering pertinent data to elaborate and improve groupings in your developing theory’
16 (Qureshi, 2018, p. 20218). As mentioned, FEMA is responsible for all phases in the disaster management cycle. Theoretically speaking, the role of FEMA is rather interesting, since the whole intention of the creation of FEMA, was to have an organization to step-in when communities and localities are not equipped well enough to take care of the situation themselves (FEMA, 2019). Thus, the physical and financial assistance of FEMA is only triggered, when state and local governments are not capable of carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens (FEMA, 2019).
3.1.2 Deviant Case
This case has been chosen for the fact that FEMA failed to effectively respond to Katrina. By all accounts, FEMA’s preparedness to mitigate the impacts of a catastrophic storm hurricane (the dependent variable) was inadequate in the face of Katrina and I hope to establish to what extent FEMAs leadership and capabilities has something to do with the case.
The natural disaster was of a large scale, and had a large impact on the citizens of the United States. Because of this, hurricane Katrina’s effects cannot be compared to ‘common consequences’ of natural disasters described in the theoretical part of this study. Based on the fact that the services of FEMA were triggered, and the extreme values of Hurricane Katrina, the case can be considered a deviant case study. In addition, Lagadec (2008) claims that the case of Katrina is deviant in the sense that I cannot be put into the ‘typical emergent event’, and can therefore not be classified within a relatively defined and stable context. Hence, he argues that the case of Katrina is hyper complex, as it did not only cause persistent flooding, it also caused a series of industrial disasters, critical evacuation challenges, widespread lethal pollution, the destruction of 90 per cent of the essential utility networks, public safety concerns, possible loss of New Orleans port area, and great uncertainty whether the city could be saved or not (Lagadec, 2008, p. 7).
Considering the fact that Gerring & Cojocaru (2016) state that deviant cases provide the opportunity to learn about variation so that causal relationships can be detected, the case of hurricane Katrina is methodologically interesting. In addition, Gerring & Cojocaru (2016), explain that the goal of a deviant case study is to clarify the peculiar case and other similar cases, to provide a generalizable hypothesis about the phenomenon of interest. In this case, by focusing on and analysing the deficient management skills of FEMA, I try to develop an explanation on what leadership skills and competences are required from disaster managers, so that the effects of natural disasters can be mitigated effectively.
Ultimately, the findings of the case will be compared to the literature and theoretical expectations made, followed by recommendations and conclusions. Below, an overview is given of the selection of independent and dependent variables in this case.
3.2 The independent and Dependent Variables
To explain my selection of variables, I would like to mention that the theoretical background chapter described several competences and leadership skills necessary for the mitigation phase in disaster management. I therefore based my selection on the variables that were highlighted in the theoretical expectations, and were therefore, seen as most ‘critical’ in disaster management. These independent variables are: communication, adoption of mitigation policies, and situational awareness. Other competences and leadership skills described can be seen as complementary.
17 Moreover, these independent variables have also been selected based on the fact that according to GAO (2006), the themes leadership, clarity of the NRP, planning training and exercises, and strengthening capabilities for catastrophic events, have been given central importance and underpin the challenges in responding to Hurricane Katrina. These topics have been covered by the White House, and included in the revisions of the NRP (GAO, 2006). Unfortunately, nine years later, after several improvements, Chris Currie (director of DHS) wrote in his statement that there are still several challenges regarding national preparedness, disaster response, and emergency management areas of FEMA (GAO, 2015).
I therefore try to analyse the complications in responding to Katrina, and compare it to current literature on these topics, so that recommendations can be made to improve the mitigation of hazards in the future. Below, I depicted the variables in Table 1, accompanied with their definitions, how I will operationalize them, and which data source I selected to collect the data. Table 1. Operationalization of Variables
Variables Definition Operationalization Source
Independent:
IV 1: Adoption of mitigation policies
Adoption of mitigation planning, warning systems, dangerous goods routing, public education, and risk-based land-use planning (Henstra, 2012).
Analysing the adoption of mitigation policies absorbed in the National Response Plan.
-The National Response Plan (2004).
- The National Response Framework (2008 & 2019) - National Incident Management Systems (2004). IV2: Communication
Information sharing involving the technology associated with the representation, transfer,
interpretation, and processing of data among persons, places and machines (Meeds, 2006).
Analysing the
chronological line of incidents that took place before Katrina’s landfall in order to track when information is shared and with whom.
-Online news articles such as the Brookings
Institution, the Northern Command.
- Governmental agency websites, such as, DHS, the National Climatic Data Centre
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
IV3: Situational Awareness
The perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the analysis of their status in the near future (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007).
Analysing evaluations reports and congressional reports on FEMA’s situational awareness. Evaluation Reports of : -Select Bipartisan Committee - Homeland Security - U.S. Senate
- U.S. Senate Hearing Dependent:
Effective
Mitigation of hazardous impact.
Incorporation of all planned actions outlined in the preparation phase of a disaster so that its’ upcoming impacts can be moderated and
IV 1: Adoption of Mitigation Policies: here, a full adoption of all the mitigation policies in the
-Evaluation Reports (described above).
- The NRP - The GAO
18 decreased (Alexander, 2002, p.5).
This includes the full adoption of mitigation policies, good communication in the network, and the ongoing presence of situational awareness to make critical decisions.
NRP is analysed. In addition, effective mitigation includes the presence of mitigation planning, use of warning systems, public education, dangerous good routing, and risk-based land-use planning is analysed. All five should be present for the mitigation to be effective.
IV 2: Communication: The presence of the
arrangement of
functioning
communication systems for a potential disaster is analysed. The moments and the content of Mr. Brown’ communication in the network are analysed and will serve as an indication to what extent he was able to create situational awareness and make critical decisions IV 3: Situational Awareness:
Effective mitigation is only possible when a manager obtains the third stage of situational awareness (predicting what will happen after the data is obtained and understood).
3.3 Data Collection & Analyses
By analysing and exploring FEMA’s activities during Hurricane Katrina, I try to explain how and why their management skills were not efficient enough in successfully mitigating the effects of the hurricane. As the sources that are used to answer the main research question in this study are depicted above, in this section, I would like to provide a more in-depth elaboration of their use. In addition, an interview has also been conducted to collect more data. Below, more elaboration on this interview is provided.
3.3.1 National Response Plan
To collect data on IV 1, the focus will be put on the National Response Plan. The NRP provides foundational emergency management doctrine for how the Nations respond to threats of
19 hazards, incidents, or other important events. The NRP is built on bendable and adjustable concepts identified in the National Incident Management System (NIMS), so that the roles and responsibilities are affiliated across the Nation (Homeland Security, 2019). The NRP identifies a lead agency and assigns all responsibilities to them. As for coordination, the NRP includes Emergency Support Functions (ESFs), which are response-coordinating structures at the federal level that organize and manage resources to distribute essential capabilities (Homeland Security, 2019). The ESF’s sum up FEMA’s responsibilities in disaster management and should therefore be taken care of. Thus, by using the NRP, this study will access to what extent FEMA took on these responsibilities mentioned in the NRP, tries to clarify why and how they failed in some, and to what extent they adopted these policies within the plan.
3.3.2 Chronological record of incidents
In collecting data for IV 2, all incidents that took place before Hurricane Katrina arrived are considered. The focus is put on activities and choices made by FEMA. To construct the choices made by FEMA, a chronological record of her actions before August 29th (day of arrival of Hurricane Katrina) are analysed. Impartial websites (the Brookings Institution, the Northern Command, and the National Climatic Data Centre) that outline the facts of Hurricane Katrina will be conducted, along with research of independent organizations that do independent research in a non-profit manner. This way, I try to develop a chronological record of all incidents that is trustworthy, with no political preferences present, and fact-driven. In addition, national reports (Select Bipartisan Committee, Homeland Security, U.S. Senate, U.S. Senate Hearing) of the hurricane will be used to analyse the federal response activities, and in specific, its shortcomings. Hence, the focus is put on characteristics of FEMA’s management.
3.3.3 Evaluations Reports on FEMA’s failures
In collecting data for IV 3, the choice has been made to select documents that are used to provide the first insights related to mitigation phase of the hurricane. The documents related to FEMA’s actions are only considered, and will provide all insights on what actually happened before the hurricane arrived. The website of the US senate was mainly used, to trace these documents. Tracing keywords such as ‘failures of FEMA’, ‘FEMA’s initiatives’, and ‘Hurricane Katrina’ are used. In short, the role of leadership skills will be measured throughout all activities of FEMA, in which the focus is put on critical decision making skills that helped or did not help in creating situational awareness.
3.3.4 Interview
Moreover, an interview has also been conducted with Dirk-Jan Walstra, who is a Director of Hydraulic Engineering at Deltares. He has been involved in the post-Katrina project ‘Mississippi Coast Improvement program’, and has been interviewed so that additional data can be collected on the case. In addition, his contribution allows to develop further recommendations for future disaster management, but also allows to make statements regarding the study, for example on what could have been done to mitigate the hazardous impacts of Katrina effectively. Moreover, this interview provides a different perspective on the case in that it discusses other socio-economical elements. The transcript of the interview can be found under the Appendix.
By using these data sources, I will make a sincere attempt in answering the research question posed in this study. All findings of FEMA’s actual mitigation activities are compared to what the NRP actually desired from FEMA. This comparison will allow me to make
20 recommendations that are directed at illustrating the role of FEMA and their capability regarding adoption of mitigation policies, communication and situational awareness. This study aims to provide recommendations and explanations to what extent these capabilities are required in the mitigation phase of disaster management. This is not only to prevent future mistakes by other management agencies, but also to hopefully prevent catastrophic consequences generally caused by natural disasters.
4. Case Description
Hurricane Katrina was one of the most devastating hurricanes in U.S. history, causing more than 1,600 deaths, more than 80 billion dollars in damages, and displacing thousands of people (Dass-Brailsford, 2010). Moreover, New Orleans’s levees broke in 53 places, almost 80 per cent of the city was flooded, all institutions providing care and aid were understaffed, and the basic infrastructure of the city was weakened (Dass-Brailsford, 2010). Hurricane Katrina arrived at the small town of Buras at 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005 (Dass-Brailsford, 2010). Before its arrival, several events took place.
The city of New Orleans is the largest city in Louisiana, with approximately 455,000 inhabitants (pre-Katrina). It is situated in the Mississippi River Delta, and much of the city is below sea level and therefore vulnerable to flooding. Because of the economic importance of the port of New Orleans, and the energy infrastructure in the Gulf region, storm damage has the potential to cause substantial economic harm (Graham et al., 2009, p. 68).
The potential of storm damage has been taken into account, several years ago. In fact, the Flood Control Act of 1965 allowed for the creation of floodwalls and man-made levees to protect the city from flooding. With this being said, it should be made clear that the consequences of Katrina were no surprise for the federal government. Actually, years preceding Katrina, the risk of a hurricane disaster even had its own name, ‘the New Orleans Scenario’ (Graham et al., 2009, p. 68).
4.1 Levees
Levees are large embankments of earth or stone that make up part of the flood control system to protect New Orleans from Hurricanes and floods. They line the Mississippi Rover, the shores of Lake Pontchartrain, and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Other structures of protection from hurricanes are floodwalls, pumps, drainage canals, and floodgates controlling the flow of additional water in and around the city. Floodwall are high vertical walls of concrete and steel. Floodgates are gates that close the streets when floodwater finds it way after levees break. Moreover, because of the low sea level, a system of pumps and canals exists to remove floodwater. In New Orleans, there are more than 200 gates and 125 miles of levees and floodwalls to protect the city from storms such as Katrina (U.S. Senate, 2006, p. 129).
4.2 Events Timeline
Before Katrina made landfall, several events occurred. On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, disputes its first recommendations about the tropical system, noting that the weather system is about 560 kilometres east of Miami (Drye, 2005). The next day, the storm has come closer (370 kilometres), has gotten stronger, more organizes, and received the name ‘Katrina’ (Drye, 2005). The day after, the storm turned into a hurricane of a category one, and arrived to land, causing trees to fall and killing two people (Drye, 2005). On
21 August 26, Katrina is rapidly strengthening because of the very warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and as a consequence, Governors of Louisiana declare states of emergency (Drye, 2005). The next day, Katrina turned into a Category Three hurricane, and the day after that, it turned into a Category 5, ‘a catastrophic hurricane’ (Drye, 2005). On August 29, the hurricane’s eye hits land, and as the storm continues to move shore, it decreases in strength, and danger seems to pass, however, the breaching of the levees protecting New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain, caused more flooding (Drye, 2005).
4.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency
In Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hold the responsibility for preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effect of, responding to , and recovering from all consequences (FEMA, 2019).
On April 1, 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created to coordinate the federal government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters ( (FEMA, 2019). Until 2003, FEMA was an independent Cabinet-level agency, but on March 1, 2003, it became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is responsible for coordinating a wide-ranging national strategy and to safeguard the country against terrorism and respond to future attacks. FEMA failed to prepare and fund hurricane protection and response, long time before the potential risks of Katrina. The lack of money to run simulations and division of plans for hurricane response was a main issue in creating an effective design and construction of a New Orleans System for hurricane protection. In addition, FEMA’s director, Michael Brown, was replaced two weeks afters Katrina made landfall, due to not carrying out his responsibilities adequately (U.S. Senate, 2006, p. 43). Because of this lack of capabilities and leadership skills, the safety of inhabitants was not put first, which unfortunately lead to fatal consequences on August 29th, in 2005 (Graham et al., 2009, p. 69).
22
5. Results
5.1 Adoption of mitigation policies.
This part of the study will focus on the mitigation policies disposed in the National Response Plan. This part’s has the sole intention to present a description of the Department of Homeland Security, followed by its three main policy initiatives. The main characteristics of each initiative are discussed, in which the primary focus is to outline the responsibilities of FEMA on an organizational level. It serves as an informational section, to give the reader insight on the policy background. It will be used in combination with the other two sections of the results chapter, to deliver a proper analysis of the study.
5.1.1 Department of Homeland Security
After the incident of 9/11, the context of emergency management preparedness in the United States changed profoundly, including the contribution of federal states in preparing and responding to disasters (Jenkins, 2006). Eleven days after the terrorist attack, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the White House was established, to coordinate a wide-ranging national strategy and to safeguard the country against terrorism and respond to future attacks (Homeland Security, 2015). Along with this change, FEMA reorganised to become part of the new DHS, and while DHS increased counterterrorism efforts, FEMA’s powers and resources got reduced (Graham et al., 2009, p. 50).
In order to effectively prepare and respond to disasters, there should be a clear understanding of expected roles and responsibilities. Comparatively, it is also required to identify the essential capabilities that need to be further developed, and capabilities that are important, but not as critical in mitigating a major emergency. DHS therefore undertook three major policy initiatives to make sure emergency managers are capable in preparing for hazards (Jenkins, 2006). These consist of the National Response Plan (NRP), National Incident Management Systems (NIMS), and National Preparedness Goal (NPG). Below, a short description is given of all three.
5.1.2 National Response Plan
The purpose of the NRP is to establish a profound, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident management across a spectrum of activities including all four phases of disaster management (Homeland Security, 2004). During the response of Hurricane Katrina, the NRP was used for the first time, and guided FEMA in their actions for the first time as well. The plan consisted of several components. To illustrate them in a structured manner, Table 2. below is generated, derived from the document ‘The National Response Plan’ (Homeland Security, 2004).
Table 2. Components of the National Response Plan
Component Definition
The Base Plan Plan including planning assumptions, roles and responsibilities, concepts of operations, incident management actions, and plan maintenance instructions.
Appendixes Formats providing information, including
terms, definitions, and a compendium of national interagency plans.
23 Emergency Support Function Annexes Detailed information that group Federal
resources and capabilities into functional areas that are needed during Incidents of National significance.
Support Annexes
(Not implemented for use during the time of Katrina, because
Formats providing guidance and describe the processes and requirements necessary to implement NRP management objectives efficiently and effectively.
Source: (Homeland Security, 2004).
5.1.3 National Incident Management System
The development of the NRP also called for the creation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which provides a core set of doctrine, concepts, terminology, and organizational processes to enable effective and efficient construction of Federal special-purpose disaster management and emergency response plans (Homeland Security, 2004, p.1). The NIMS consists of six major components, in which the component ‘preparedness’ focuses on an integrated combination of planning, training, exercises, personnel qualification and management processes (Homeland Security, 2004). In addition, there are several NIMS resource management principles to enhance response capabilities. One of them are Emergency Support Functions (ESF’s) (third component of the National Response Plan). There are 15 EFS’s and the FEMA Administrator (advisor to the President, and Homeland Security regarding disaster management) needs to effectively support all ESF’s (Homeland Security, 2008, p. 57). FEMA can call one or more ESF’s to assist in organising response support from across the Federal Government and certain NGOs (Homeland Security, 2008, p. 57). The ESF’s offer support, resources, and services in functional zones such as transportation, communications, mass care, public health and so on.
In FEMA’s National Response Coordination Centre (NRCC), FEMA operates and monitors possible or emerging incidents and maintains the efforts of regional and field mechanisms (Homeland Security, 2008, p. 56). In addition, together with DHS , the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of DHS (EPR), FEMA upholds the NRCC as a functional element of the Homeland Security Operations Centre (HSOC) ( (Homeland Security, 2004). Besides, this centre coordinates the operations of incidents and its management, and are the first to be informed about potential incidents with National Significance (Homeland Security, 2004, p.24). The latter refers to incidents that are ‘high-impact events that require a coordinated and effective response by an appropriate combination of federal, state, local , tribal, private-sector and non-governmental entities, in order to save lives, and provide the basis for recovery and mitigation activities’ (Select Bipartisan Committee, 2006, p. 37). FEMA’s relation to the HSOC is mainly that it represents the organization and provides people to work for it as well.
5.1.4. National Preparedness Goal
In the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, ‘National Preparedness’, the secretary of DHS is directed to coordinate efforts to measure and advance national preparedness (Homeland Security, 2004, p.59). Moreover, the goal establishes national preparedness assessment and reporting system, which informs the President to what extent the Nation is prepared for disasters. Unfortunately, the goal was still in draft version during the disaster of
